10 Dec 2018

France’s “yellow vest” protesters brave repression and mass arrests

Alex Lantier & Kumaran Ira

For the fourth consecutive Saturday, “yellow vest” (gilet jaunes) protestors demonstrated yesterday across France against the rightwing government of Emmanuel Macron. They did so in defiance of ominous threats of state violence and a massive mobilization of security forces.
Clearly, the French President’s attempts to end the protests, first by postponing the gas tax hikes that set the movement into motion and then by canceling them outright, failed. The demands being raised—for social equality and against militarism and dictatorship—show that this is a movement directed towards the defense of workers’ interests, not just in France, but also internationally.
Yesterday’s protests paralyzed France and large sections of Belgium. The Minister of the Interior reported that 125,000 “yellow vests” protested in France. In the major cities where demonstrations were organized most shops were closed. On Saturday evening, the Vinci highway network reported “significant disruptions” and slowdowns on over 20 highways, many of them as the result of “yellow vest” protests and barricades.
Demonstrations took place in many cities, including Paris, Lyon, Bordeaux, Toulouse, St. Etienne, Perpignan, Marseille, Avignon, Nantes, Brest, Quimper, Lille and Rennes.
Some 400 people were arrested in Brussels during a “yellow vests” rally of 1,000 protesters. This is the second “yellow vest” demonstration in the Belgian capital, directed against rising fuel prices and the increased cost of living. The protestors are demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Charles Michel.
Unrest has also spread to the Belgian provinces. “We must take from the rich to give to the poor,” a “yellow vest” nurse told the press.
The French government hurled hysterical accusations against protesters descending on Paris, accusing them of preparing to “slaughter” (massacre) the “forces of order.” Police viciously attacked and repressed demonstrations in major cities, arresting almost triple the number of protesters as on the previous Saturday, December 1.
Throughout the country, police arrested 1,723 people, a level that French Minister of the Interior Christophe Castaner characterized as “exceptional.” Of these, 1,220 were ordered held in custody. Paris police headquarters announced that more than 1,082 people had been arrested, of whom more than 625 are being kept in custody.
Clashes and confrontations between protesters and law enforcement broke out in the major French cities, including Paris, Bordeaux, Lyon and Toulouse. The police fired tear gas and flash balls to disperse the protesters, wounding over 100. In Paris and in Marseille’s Old Port, security forces attacked protestors with armored vehicles and water cannons.
In Paris, the police proceeded with extraordinary aggressiveness. To disperse the protesters early in the day, police mounted charges against peaceful demonstrators from the outset, before they could group together in a more powerful mass. Police attacked protesters on the Champs-Elysees and elsewhere in the city, surrounding and trapping peaceful protesters, and dispersing them with armored vehicles and mobile gendarmerie, including a mounted horse brigade.
Sylvie
WSWS reporters interviewed people in Paris. Sylvie, from the Oise region of northern France, said, “Every time that there has been anger, it’s because people can no longer provide for themselves. There is no right; there is no left. The unions have also taken us for a ride. We represent the people. We have the right to live decently, we have the right to be respected by those who are supposed to represent us.”
She added, “We are also denouncing the 1 percent who take advantage of the 99 percent; we want it to stop. In fact, it is they who tax us, they are the ones who hold the wealth. It’s modern slavery.”
Stéphane told us: “Macron very clearly showed where he was going, when he eliminated the tax on the wealthy and reduced my Housing Aid by €5. Is this democracy? No, we are now in a financial dictatorship. And I hope it will not become a military dictatorship. “
Shortly after being teargassed, the wife of a railway worker told the WSWS: “Mr. Macron treats us with contempt. They surround us, they send us to the right, then to the left, and they gas us.” She stressed that Macron no longer has any political legitimacy. “We cannot even demonstrate peacefully anymore; the police force charges us and fires tear gas at us. I hope the people will rise up. Excuse me, but is this a way to treat people, with tear gas?”
Once again, the government has indicated that it intends to trample on the demands of the “yellow vests” and continue the austerity policy that has been rejected by the vast majority of the French people.
During a very short press conference on Saturday evening, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe stressed that there would be no change in government policy: “Vigilance and mobilization remain in place, because thugs are still at work in Paris and in some provincial towns (...) In order to confront this day, we had to conceive an exceptional plan, with the extensive mobilization of the forces of the law and means to ensure their continuous mobility.”
“It is necessary to reestablish our national unity, through dialogue, through work, through regroupment. The President of the Republic [Macron] will speak and propose (...) measures that will allow the French nation to find itself,” he added.
Rising anger among workers and young people in the face of official intransigence is developing into an open confrontation between the working class and the government, and towards a general strike. The main advantage the government enjoys at present is that, in this explosive situation, large masses of workers do not clearly see a revolutionary perspective. As they seek to fight against the government, they are confronted with Macron’s support from the petty-bourgeois parties that for decades have posed as the “left.”
Jean-Luc Mélenchon is calling for respect for the police. “Never deceive yourself as to your opponent. The handling of police forces is not the job of the police. It is the business of the politicians who give the orders. The duty of the police is to serve and obey. And the orders are political,” tweeted the leader of La France Insoumise (LFI). This defence of the security forces and French state is provoking ever greater mistrust of, and hostility toward, the LFI among the “yellow vests.”
One sign reads: There is money! At the boss's house
On Saturday “yellow vests” in Flixecourt in the northeast announced that, in the name of “political independence,” they would distance themselves from LFI MP Francois Ruffin, who had declared himself to be on their side. Ruffin had said he wanted to serve as a “bridge” between the movement and the government. But this proposal stumbled on the hostility of the “yellow vests” to the union apparatus and their political allies such as the LFI.
François Ruffin “gave us very honest support, but we do not want to be taken over by the media or politicians. We are fighting for full political independence, even though, of course, we all have a political color,” said Christophe Ledoux, one of the leaders of the movement in Flixecourt.
This development underscores the need to build action committees, independent of the trade union apparatuses, to enable workers in struggle to coordinate their actions, and a Marxist vanguard that will enable workers to identify and thwart attempts by official circles to smother and strangle their struggles.

China summons American ambassador over detention of Huawei executive

Peter Symonds 

China has condemned the detention of top Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou by Canadian authorities on December 1 and threatened retaliation against Canada and also the US, which is seeking her extradition. The highly provocative actions of the US are part of the Trump administration’s broader campaign to prevent Chinese corporate giants such as Huawei from challenging American technological dominance.
Meng, who is Huawei’s financial controller and daughter of its founder and current head Ren Zhengfei, was seized while changing planes in Vancouver on her way to Mexico from Hong Kong. She is still being held pending the outcome of a bail hearing due to continue today. If Meng is extradited to the US and convicted on charges of fraudulently evading American sanctions on Iran, she faces up to 30 years in jail.
Chinese foreign vice-minister Le Yucheng summoned Canadian ambassador John McCallum on Saturday to lodge a “strong protest” over Meng’s detention and urged Ottawa to release Meng immediately. Beijing has warned of “grave consequences,” accusing Canada of “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people.”
On Sunday, Le also summoned Terry Branstad, the US ambassador in China, to lodge “solemn representations and strong protests” against the case against Meng. He told Branstad that the US should immediately correct its wrong action and overturn the order for her arrest.
Editorials over the weekend by the state-run Xinhua news agency and the People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reinforced the condemnation, giving voice to widespread public outrage in China.
Xinhua denounced the detention as an “extremely nasty” act and warned that it caused “serious damage to Sino-Canada relations.” It noted that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must have known about the pending arrest, but chose not to notify China, but instead “assisted the US side’s unilateral hegemonic behaviour.”
The People’s Daily warned that to “avoid paying a dear price” Canada had to “immediately stop its infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of the Chinese citizen.” In a warning directed at the US, the editorial declared: “China will not stir up trouble. But it is also not afraid of trouble. Nobody should underestimate China’s confidence, willpower and strength.”
To add insult to injury, Meng’s arrest took place as President Trump was holding talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Argentina to do a deal to halt Washington’s escalating economic war against China that has led to massive US tariffs on Chinese goods, and counter-tariffs by China. A vague agreement by the two leaders to resolve a long list of US economic demands within 90 days is now in doubt.
Speaking on CBS television yesterday, Robert Lighthizer, the US trade representative, blithely declared that Meng’s detention “shouldn’t really have much of an impact” on trade talks. “This is a criminal justice matter. It is totally different from anything I work on,” he said.
However, as Lighthizer is well aware, the US-China talks over the next three months are not simply about reducing the US trade deficit with China. On the basis of allegations of intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers, the Trump administration is demanding that Beijing end its “Made in China 2025” plans to make the country a global leader in key hi-tech industries, including computer chips, robotics and electric cars.
The US has already targeted Huawei, the world’s second largest smartphone manufacturer, as well as ZTE, another huge Chinese hi-tech corporation. In May, the Pentagon ordered retail outlets to stop selling Huawei and ZTE smartphones on military bases. In August, Trump banned the US government and government contractors from using equipment from the Chinese manufacturers.
Washington has also enlisted allies such as Australia and New Zealand which have barred Huawei and ZTE from involvement in establishing the next generation, 5G wireless networks. Last week UK telco group BT announced it would not buy Huawei equipment for the core of its 5G network.
The high stakes involved were spelled out by Paul Triolo, the head of global tech policy at risk consultancy Eurasia Group, who told CCN that Huawei was the only company in the world right now that can produce all the elements of a 5G network, including base stations, data centres, antennas and handsets, and assemble them “at scale and cost.”
An editorial in the state-run China Daily last week declared: “The US is trying to do whatever it can to contain Huawei's expansion in the world simply because the company is the point man for China’s competitive technology companies.”
Meng’s detention demonstrates that the US will stop at nothing to ensure that China does not threaten its lead in key hi-tech products and related military hardware and systems, or more broadly its global economic and strategic dominance. Her arrest dramatically escalates the thuggish US practice of imposing unilateral sanctions, not backed by the UN, in this case by President Obama against Iran, then inflicting massive penalties on individuals and corporations that violate them.
In the hearing last Friday, a lawyer for Canada’s Justice Department for the first time outlined the US allegations against Meng and Huawei, which is accused of using a Hong Kong company, Skycom Tech between 2009 and 2014 to do business with Iranian telecos. It is alleged that Meng misled American banks into clearing transactions that were in violation of US sanctions.
A lawyer for Meng told the bail hearing that there was “no evidence” that Skycom was a subsidiary of Huawei during the time in question and declared that US allegations of fraud against his client would be “hotly contested.”
The Beijing regime has not indicated what retaliation it might take if Meng is extradited to the United States and put on trial on fraud charges. Clearly the Chinese leadership has to weigh up the consequences of a complete breakdown of talks with the US over trade and other economic issues, against the lawlessness of American actions and the danger that any deal would be quickly broken by the White House.
Aggressive US economic, diplomatic and military moves against China, begun under Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” is intensifying under Trump. In a demagogic speech two months ago, US Vice President Mike Pence lashed out against Beijing, denouncing it on issues ranging from “human rights” and intellectual property theft, to the “militarization” of the South China Sea and creating “debt traps” for countries through its Belt and Road Initiative for massive infrastructure spending across Eurasia.
Speaking on CBS television yesterday, Republican Senator Marco Rubio stepped up the threats against Huawei and ZTE, declaring that he would introduce legislation to ban the companies from operating in the US. “Huawei and ZTE and multiple Chinese companies pose a threat to our national interests, our national economic interests and our national security interests,” he said. Rubio is a senior member of the Senate foreign relations committee and chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China which is a hotbed for anti-China propaganda and measures.
Locking Huawei out of the US could threaten its existence. Tom Holland of Gavekal Research pointed out last Friday that 33 of Huawei’s 92 main suppliers are US companies, including chipmakers Intel, Qualcomm, and Micron, and software firms Microsoft and Oracle. “If Washington now prohibits these companies from selling to Huawei, the Chinese telecoms giant will struggle to survive,” Holland wrote in a note.
The detention of the Huawei executive has far broader implications. Just as the Trump administration has been threatening trade war measures not only against China but against allies such as Germany and Japan, so the US could target their top executives in the same manner as Meng has been detained on concocted charges. The arrest is another sign of the accelerating economic rivalry and conflict that is leading towards the eruption of global war.

On the Sidelines of G-20: India's Third Way

Sandip Kumar Mishra

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi participated in several bilateral and multilateral meetings on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit in Argentina. Such meetings are not unusual. However, this year, two trilateral meetings that PM Modi was a part of drew significant attention. One meeting was held between India, Japan and the US, called JAI (Japan, America and India), and the other trilateral was called RIC (Russia, India and China). The composition of these meetings, representing countries that are often in contest, with India as the only common participant, is a positive development from India's perspective. While some may consider this Indian opportunism or a ploy to benefit from both formations, it is more useful to recognise India's intention to work as a bridge between differing world views. It is an open message from India: that both groupings have important roles to play in achieving a stable, prosperous and peaceful global order. Any future economic and security architecture of the region must be inclusive, and India is willing to take the diplomatic leap to emphasise this point.
JAI was the first trilateral meeting of its kind. All three participating countries stressed the import of a "free, open, inclusive and rule-based" order as essential for peace and security in the Indo-Pacific. Modi spoke of "shared values" as the basis for regional economic growth. He noted that the acronym JAI translates as "success" in Hindi, and that cooperation would undoubtedly "enhance connectivity, maritime cooperation and stability in Indo-Pacific." India suggested five action points for the grouping: connectivity, sustainable development, disaster relief, maritime security and unfettered mobility. It is important to remember that the US, Japan and Australia, along with India, have been articulating their Indo-Pacific strategy, which is considered to be aimed at containing China’s ‘assertive’ behaviour in the region.
The articulation of the quadrilateral network and annual joint Malabar naval exercises are seen as elements of this same broad strategy. India is viewed as a consequential member of this formulation, and there have been several calls for more active participation. While India's role and significance in the Indo-Pacific arises from its geopolitical positioning and as a lynchpin in restraining future Chinese disruption, for India, the vision finds consonance with its goal of a free and fair global order in which any country that plays by the rules is an equal partner. India feels that if China is able to exercise discretion in its behaviour, it could contribute immensely  to the region on both the economic and security fronts. This was underlined by Modi at the Shangri La Dialogue in June 2018, where he said, “India does not see the Indo-Pacific region as a strategy or as a club of limited members. Nor as a grouping that seeks to dominate. And by no means do we consider it as directed against any country.”
India’s participation in RIC meeting must also be seen in light of the above. This was the second trilateral meeting between India, Russia and China, held after a gap of 12 years. The leaders of the three countries acknowledged that their friendship and cooperation would "enhance world peace." It also announced that all three countries give importance to reform and strengthening of multilateral institutions. In this context, an example of India pursuing balanced and consistent relations with both the US and Russia is its deal with the latter to buy the S-400 missile defence system, despite signs of displeasure from the US. Similarly, India has sought to maintain working relations with China, with Modi most recently meeting President Xi Jinping for an informal summit meet to 'reset' India-China bilateral relations in April 2018. India is clearly interested in maintaining its relations with a diverse set of countries, some of whom are often at odds with each other.  
The most significant takeaway from the two trilateral meetings is that India is confident and transparent in its intent to work as a bridge between the two apparently contesting articulations for the regional economic and security order. India seeks a 'third way' in which cooperation rather than contestation between the US and China is the dominant principle, which will help bring peace, prosperity and stability to the region. These two meetings must thus be seen as complimentary, and in contradiction of each other.

8 Dec 2018

Women Deliver Conference 2019 Scholarship Program for Women (Fully-funded to attend Conference in Canada)

Application Deadline: 15th January 2019

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Vancouver, Canada

About the Award: The Scholarship program is opened to individuals of any age, but preference will be given to applicants from low- and middle-income countries and/or vulnerable populations who are working to advance gender equality and the health, rights, and well-being of girls and women—including sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Everyone deserves a seat at the table. Women Deliver is committed to making our conferences accessible to people across all geographies, ages, and backgrounds.

Type: Conference, Training

Eligibility: Upon acceptance, scholarship recipients must be willing to complete the following commitments.
  • Participate in the online communication and advocacy boot-camp in spring of 2019
  • Hold at least one policy dialogue post-conference in home country
  • Secure visa at least 3 months prior to the conference (Canada allows applications 6 months prior to the event)
  • Participate fully in the conference (on-site attendance for the full duration)
  • Respond promptly to requests for information from the organizers
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Scholarship covers
  • Economy Airfare,
  • Registration Fee,
  • Hotel Accommodation (days of conference only)
  • Per Diem (days of conference only),
  • Ground Transportation (days of conference only),
  • Visa Reimbursement,
  • Health Insurance.
Duration of Program: June 3-6 2019

How to Apply: APPLY TODAY

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

ICTP Mathematics Research Fellowships 2019 for International Researchers

Application Deadline: 7th January 2019

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Italy

About the Award: Every year, ICTP’s Mathematics section offers research opportunities for outstanding mathematicians, including postdoctorates. The section is now accepting applications for its Postdoctoral and Visiting Fellowships. ICTP Visiting Fellowships are intended for short visits to ICTP (1 to 6 months).

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • Fellows must have a PhD in mathematics prior to the start of their fellowship.
  • Preference will be given to candidates who will benefit most from the time spent at ICTP, in the sense of pursuing their own research, using the ICTP facilities, interacting with other mathematicians, and ultimately turning the fellowship into a positive opportunity for their home institution or country as well as for themselves.
Number of Awards: Limited

Value of Fellowships: Fully-funded

Duration of Fellowships: 
  • Visiting Fellowships: 1 to 6 months
  • Research Fellowships: The fellowships have a 24-month duration with a possible extension for a further 12 months;
How to Apply: Candidates should apply using the ICTP online application system.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

ICTP Postgraduate Diploma Scholarship 2019 for Students from Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 28th February 2019.

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

About the Award: The Postgraduate Diploma Programme started in 1991, and since then, many of its graduates have gone on to do PhDs at various prestigious universities, including in Europe and North America. Many of them, after a few postdoctoral stints abroad, have returned to their home countries, where they are actively involved in teaching and in developing advanced research groups there. Others have pursued scientific careers in leading scientific institutions worldwide. Many former students continue to maintain an active collaboration with ICTP throughout their careers.
Two semesters of classes are followed by a research project and dissertation. Interested students can apply to study in one of five subject areas:
  • High Energy, Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Earth System Physics
  • Mathematics
  • Quantitative Life Sciences
After the completion of the courses (including examinations), participants are required to work on a dissertation, to be submitted and defended.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 
  • The Programme is open to young qualified graduates in physics, mathematics or related fields.
  • Scholarships are awarded to successful candidates from developing countries (with particular emphasis on students from the least developed regions of the world).
Selection Criteria: The selection of the candidates is based on their university performance as well as on academic recommendations. The selection committee aims to select the best academically qualified candidates while striving for gender balance and geographical distribution.

Number of Awards: A limited number of scholarships (around 10 per field) will be awarded to successful candidates.

Value of Award: Scholarships will be used to cover candidate’s travel and living expenses during their stay at ICTP.

How to Apply:  Apply online.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Facebook AI Research (FAIR) Residency Program 2019

Application Deadline: 28th January 2019 at 5:00 pm PST.

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: The Facebook AI Research (FAIR) Residency Program is a one-year research training program with Facebook’s AI Research group, designed to give you hands-on experience of machine learning research. The program will pair you with a senior researcher or engineer in FAIR, who will act as your mentor. Together, you will pick a research problem of mutual interest and then devise new deep learning techniques to solve it. We also encourage collaborations beyond the assigned mentor. The research will be communicated to the academic community by submitting papers to top academic venues (NIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR, ICCV, ACL, EMNLP etc.), as well as open-source code releases. Visit the FAIR research page for examples of research performed in FAIR .
The AI research residency experience is designed to prepare you for graduate programs in machine learning, or to kickstart a research career in the field. This is a full-time program that cannot be undertaken in conjunction with university study or a full-time job.

Type: Internships/Jobs

Eligibility: Prior experience in machine learning is certainly a strength but we seek people from a diverse range of backgrounds, including areas ostensibly unrelated to machine learning such as (but not limited to) math, physics, finance, economics, linguistics, computational social science, and bioinformatics.
  • Bachelors degree in a STEM field such as Mathematics, Statistics, Physics, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent practical experience.
  • Completed coursework in: Linear Algebra, Probability, Calculus, or equivalent.
  • Coding experience in a general-purpose programming language, such as Python or C/C++.
  • Familiarity with a deep learning platform such as PyTorch, Caffe, Theano, or TensorFlow.
  • Ability to communicate complex research in a clear, precise, and actionable manner.
Preferred Qualifications
  • Research experience in machine learning or AI (as established for instance via publications and/or code releases).
  • Significant contributions to open-source projects, demonstrating strong math, engineering, statistics, or machine learning skills.
  • A strong track record of scholastic excellence.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Residents will be paid a competitive salary. Residents will also:
  • Learn how to perform research in deep learning and AI.
  • Understand prior work and existing literature.
  • Work with research mentor(s) to identify problem(s) of interest and develop novel AI techniques.
  • Translate ideas into practical code (in frameworks such as PyTorch, Caffe 2).
  • Write up research results in the form of an academic paper and submit to a top conference in the relevant area.
Duration of Program: 
  • Residency Program start: August 2019
  • Residency Program end: August 2020
How to Apply: To apply, complete the application in the Program Webpage (Link below) and include the three required documents in PDF format. Any applications or late materials after this date will not be considered.
If your application passes an initial screening, we will contact you to request a letter of recommendation. Following this, we may want to interview you in person over video conference.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Facebook

Government of Hungary (Stipendium Hungaricum) Scholarship Program 2019/2020 for International Students

Application Deadline: 15th January 2019 (23:59 Central European Time)

Eligible Countries: International. See list of countries below

To be taken at (country): Hungary

Field of Study: Applicants are encouraged to apply for study fields that are in the educational cooperation programmes between Hungary and the specific Sending Partner

About the Award: Thousands of students from all around the world apply for higher educational studies in Hungary each year. The number of Stipendium Hungaricum applicants is continuously increasing as well as the number of available scholarship places.
The programme is based on bilateral educational cooperation agreements signed between the Ministries responsible for education in the sending countries/territories and Hungary or between institutions. Currently more than 50 Sending Partners are engaged in the programme throughout 4 different continents.

Offered Since: 2013

Type: Stipendium Hungaricum scholarships are available for bachelor, master, one-tier master, doctoral and non-degree programmes (preparatory and specialisation courses).
In the Hungarian education system, one-tier master programmes cover both the bachelor and the master level of studies; therefore it is an undivided master programme that results in a master degree. These one-tier programmes are offered in specific study fields such as general medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, architecture, law, veterinary surgery, forestry engineering, etc.

Eligibility: Applications will not be considered in the following cases:
  • Hungarian citizens (including those with dual citizenships)
  • former Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship Holders, who are re-applying for studies in the same cycle of education (non-degree studies, bachelor, master, doctoral level) including both full time and partial study programmes
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 
  • Tuition-free education
    • exemption from the payment of tuition fee
  • Monthly stipend
    • non-degree, bachelor, master and one-tier master level: monthly amount of HUF 40 460 (cca EUR 130) contribution to the living expenses in Hungary, for 12 months a year, until the completion of studies
    • doctoral level: according to the current Hungarian legislation, the monthly amount of scholarship is HUF 140 000 (cca EUR 450) for the first phase of education (4 semesters) and HUF 180 000 (cca EUR 580) for the second phase (4 semesters) – for 12 months a year, until completion of studies.
  • Accommodation
    • dormitory place or a contribution of HUF 40 000 to accommodation costs for the whole duration of the scholarship period
  • Medical insurance
    • health care services according to the relevant Hungarian legislation (Act No. 80 of 1997, national health insurance card) and supplementary medical insurance for up to HUF 65 000 (cca EUR 205) a year/person
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of candidate’s chosen program:
  • Bachelor programmes: Fulltime: 2-4 years. Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
  • Master programmes:  Fulltime: 1.5-2 years. Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
  • One-tier master programmes: Fulltime: 5-6 years Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
  • Doctoral programmes:  Fulltime: 2+2 years Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
  • Non-degree programmes:
    • Preparatory course in Hungarian language: 1 year
    • Other preparatory and specialisation courses: up to 1 year
List of Eligible Countries: For full time programmes, students can apply from the following Sending Partners: Arab Republic of Egypt, Argentine Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Japan, Kingdom of Cambodia, Kingdom of Morocco, Kurdistan Regional Government/Iraq, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanese Republic, Mongolia, Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Palestine, People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, People’s Republic of China (including the Hudec scholarships), Republic of Albania, Republic of Angola, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Belarus, Republic of Colombia, Republic of Ecuador, Republic of Ghana, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iraq, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Korea, Republic of Kosovo, Republic of Macedonia (FYROM is used at OSCE, UN, CoE, EU and NATO fora), Republic of Moldova, Republic of Namibia, Republic of Paraguay, Republic of Serbia, Republic of South Africa, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Yemen, Russian Federation, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, State of Israel, Syrian Arab Republic, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Tunisian Republic, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Mexican States.

For partial study programmes, students can apply from the following Sending Partners: Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Kingdom of Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanese Republic, Mongolia, People’s Republic of China (only Hudec applicants), Republic of Albania, Republic of Belarus, Republic of India, Republic of Korea, Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Republic of Turkey, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, United Mexican States.

How to Apply: 
  • New online application surface of Tempus Public Foundation: here
  • Applications shall also be submitted to the responsible authority of the Sending Partner

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

2019/2020 Federal Government Scholarship for Nigerian Undergraduate, Masters and PhD for Study Overseas (Bilateral Educational Agreement)

Application Deadline: The BEA interviews are between 15th January – 19th January 2019 across the six geopolitical zones. Candidates are advised to apply online before these dates.

Offered annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: Nigeria

About the Federal Scholarship: The Honourable Minister of Education, is hereby inviting interested and qualified Nigerians to participate in the 2019/2020 Nomination Interview for Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA) Scholarship Awards for:

BILATERAL EDUCATION AGREEMENT (BEA)
  • Undergraduate (UG) studies tenable in Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Serbia, Hungary, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Cuba, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, Macedonia; and
  • Postgraduate (PG) studies tenable in Russia (for those whose first degrees were obtained from Russia), China, Hungary, Serbia, Turkey, Japan, Mexico, South Korea.
NIGERIA AWARD SCHOLARSHIP (NA) 2019/2020 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS TENABLE IN NIGERIA TERTIARY INSTITUIONS FOR NA, SDG (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS) FOR GIRLS ONLY

Type: The Awards are for Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) studies.


Eligibility Criteria
FOR BILATERAL EDUCATION AGREEMENT (BEA)
• Undergraduate Scholarship:
  • All applicants for undergraduate degree courses must possess a minimum qualification of Five (5) Distinctions (As & Bs) in the Senior Secoundary School Certificate, WAEC (May/June) only in the subjects relevant to their fields of study including English Language and Mathematics.
  • Certificates should not be more than Two (2) years old (2017 & 2018).
  • Age limit is from 18 to 20 years.
• Postgraduate Scholarship:
  • All applicants must hold a First Degree with at least 2nd Class Upper Division.
  • The applicants who are previous recipients of Foreign Awards must have completed at least two (2) years post qualification or employment practice in Nigeria.
  • All applicants must have completed N.Y.S.C.
  • Age limit is 35 years for Masters and 40 years for Ph.D.
  • Evidence of readiness to be released by employer.
• Since the BEA countries are non-English speaking, applicants should be prepared to undertake a mandatory one year foreign languare of the country of choice which will be the standard medium of instruction; and
• All applicants for Hungarian Scholarship must visit the website before 15th January, 2019.
• Complete the application form online
• Print the completed form and bring to the interview venue in addition to 2.0 above.
FOR NIGERIA AWARD SCHOLARSHIP (NA) 2019/2020 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS TENABLE IN NIGERIA TERTIARY INSTITUIONS FOR NA, SDG (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS) FOR GIRLS ONLY
  • Applicants for Postgraduate studies should possess a minimum of first degree with Second Class Honours Upper Division. Applicant must be registered FullTime students of Federal or State Universities.
  • All other applicants (UG, HND &NCE) must be registered full-time students in their second year or above in Federal or State Universities, Polytechnics, Monotechnics and Colleges of Education. All undergraduate Scholarship
    applicants (Physically challenged inclusive) must have at least 4.0 Cumulative Grade Points Aggregate (CGPA) on a five (5) point scale or its equivalents or 5.0 on a 7 point scale.
Number of Scholarships: Several


What are the benefits? 

  • The participating countries are responsible for the tuition and accommodation, while Nigeria government takes care of supplement, warm clothing, health insurance, research grant where applicable and take off.
  • The Nigeria Award (NA) SDG Scholarship award is to assist the scholar in the payment of:
    • Institutional charges and fees and
    • For Personal maintenance;
    • SDGs Scholarship is for female only.
How long will sponsorship last? The duration of the scholarship offer ranges from 4- 9 years depending on the level of study and the country.

Interview Dates and Zones (Venues): 2019/2020 FSB COMPTER BASED TEST VENUES AND DATES FROM 15TH TO 19TH JANUARY 2019 ARE IN THE Scholarship Webpage Links below


What to bring to Interview: All eligible applicants are to report for interview at the venues scheduled for their respective Zones of origin for proper identification. Two sets of the Printed, Completed application forms are usually submitted at the various interview centres with the following attachments:

  • Two sets of Photocopies of Educational Certificates and Testimonials of previous schools attended with the originals for sighting;
  • Only ONE certificate is accepted i.e WAEC of May/June only for undergraduate applicants;
  • Two copies of Birth certificate  from National Population Commission;
  • State of Origin/LGA certificate duly signed, stamped and dated;
  • Four (4) passport sized coloured photographs on white background;
  • Academic transcripts and NYSC discharge or Exemption certificates will be required from applicants for Postgraduate Studies.
How to Apply: Candidates nominated and finally selected by:
A. The awarding BEA countries will be required to submit to Federal Scholarship Board the following:
  • Authenticated copies of academic certificates;
  • Data page of current International passport, and
  • Specified Medical Reports &
  • Police clearance certificate where necessary.
B: THE NA/SDG AWARD:
Application forms are completed online as follows:
Complete form online
Submit and Print a copy
Attach Photocopy of the following documents to the Printed Copy
  • Letter of Admission to the Institution
  • Current Course Registration Form
  • CGPA results of year 1, 2, 3, etc.
  • Current School’s Identity Card
  • Letter of Identification from your State/Local Government
  • Two (2) passport size photographs with your name written at the back and duly signed by you.
GENERAL NOTICE: During the application candidates are expected to indicate the following:
  1. Centre of choice for the Computer Based Test (CBT); and
  2. Choice of programme preferred in order of priority (i.e. Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA), Nigerian Award (N/A), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) scholarship for girls only).
  3. Warning : Double Entries will be disqualified
OFFICIAL PHONE NUMBERS:
i) Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA): 08077884417/09094268637
ii) Nigerian Award/SDGs: 08077884418/08091155229
iv) fsb@education.gov.ng/fsbbea@education.gov.ng/fsbna@education.gov.ng
For further Technical/Apps inquires please call: 08055581004
TIME : 9.00 A.M DAILY
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION DOES NOT ATTRACT ANY PROCESSING FEE. THEREFORE, BEWARE OF FRAUDSTERS!
SIGNED:
ARC SONNY T. ECHONO, fnia
PERMANENT SECRETARY
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Visit the scholarship webpage for details  

The Security Derangement Complex: Technology Companies and Australia’s Anti-Encryption Law

Binoy Kampmark

Australia is being seen as a test case. How does a liberal democracy affirm the destruction of private, encrypted communications? In 2015, China demonstrated what could be done to technology companies, equipping other states with an inspiration: encryption keys, when required, could be surrendered to the authorities.
It is worth remembering the feeble justification then, as now.  As Li Shouwei, deputy head of the Chinese parliament’s criminal law division explained to the press at the time, “This rule accords with the actual work need of fighting terrorism and is basically the same as what other major countries in the world do”.  Birds of a feather, indeed.
An Weixing, head of the Public Security Ministry’s Counter-Terrorism division, furnishes us with the striking example of a generic state official who sees malefactors coming out of the woodwork of the nation. “Terrorism,” he somberly stated, reflecting on Islamic separatists from East Turkestan, “is the public enemy of mankind, and the Chinese government will oppose all forms of terrorism.”  Given that such elastic definitions are in the eye of the paranoid beholder, the scope for indefinite spread is ever present.
The Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, must be consulting the same oracles as those earning their keep in the PRC.  The first rule of modern governance: frighten the public in order to protect them.  Look behind deceptive facades to find the devil lurking in his trench coat.  Morrison’s rationale is childishly simple: the security derangement complex must, at all times, win over.  The world is a dark place, a jungle rife with, as Morrisons insists upon with an advertiser’s amorality, paedophile rings, terrorist cells, and naysayers.
One of his solutions?  The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, otherwise known by its more accurate title of the Anti-Encryption Bill. This poorly conceived and insufferably vague Bill, soon to escape its chrysalis to become law, shows the government playbook in action: tamper with society’s sanity; draft a ponderous bit of text; and treat, importantly, the voter as a creature mushrooming in self-loathing insecurity in the dark.
The Bill, in dreary but dangerous terms, establishes “voluntary and mandatory industry assistance to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in relation to encryption technologies via the issuing of technical assistance requests, technical assistance notices and technical capability notices”.  Technology companies are to become the bullied handmaidens, or “assistants”, of the Australian police state.
The Pentecostal Prime Minister has been able to count on supporters who see privacy as dispensable and security needs as unimpeachable.  Those who get giddy from security derangement syndrome don the academic gown of scorn, lecturing privacy advocates as ignorant idealists in a terrible world.  “I know it is a sensitive issue,” claims Rodger Shananan of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, “but the people arguing privacy just don’t have a handle on how widespread it’s used by the bad people.”  The problem with such ill-considered dross is that such technology is also used by “good” or “indifferent” people.
Precisely in being universal, inserting such anti-encryption backdoors insists on a mutual presumption of guilt, that no one can, or should be trusted.  It is in such environments that well versed cyber criminals thrive, sniffing out vulnerabilities and exploiting them.  Computing security academic Ahmed Ibrahim states the point unreservedly. “If we leave an intentional backdoor they will find it.  Once it is discovered it is usually not easy to fix.”
The extent of such government invasiveness was such as to trouble certain traditional conservative voices.  Alan Jones, who rules from the shock jock roost of radio station 2GB, asked Morrison about whether this obsession with back door access to communications might be going too far.  Quoting Angelo M. Codevilla of Boston University, a veteran critic of government incursions into private, encrypted communications, Jones suggested that the anti-encryption bill “allows police and intelligence agencies access to everyone’s messages, demanding that we believe that any amongst us is as likely or not to be a terrorist.”  Morrison, unmoved, mounted the high horse of necessity.  Like Shanahan, he was only interested in the “bad” people.
To that end, public consultation has been kept to a minimum.  In the words of human rights lawyer, Lizzie O’Shea, it was “a terrible truncation of the process”, one evidently designed to make Australia a shining light for others within the Five Eyes Alliance to follow.  “Once you’ve built the tools, it becomes very hard to argue that you can’t hand them over to the US government, the UK – it becomes something they can all use.”
There had been some hope that the opposition parties would stymy the process and postpone consideration of the bill till next year.  It could thereby be tied up, bound and sunk by various amendments.  But in the last, sagging sessions of Australia’s parliament, a compliant opposition party was keen to remain in the elector’s good books ahead of Christmas.  Bill Shorten’s Labor Party took of the root of unreason, calculating that saying yes to the contents of the bill might also secure the transfer of desperate and mentally ailing refugees on Nauru and Manus Island to the Australian mainland.
Instead, in what became a farcical bungle of miscalculating indulgence, the government got what it wanted.  The medical transfer bill on Nauru and Manus Island failed to pass in the lower house after a filibuster in the Senate by the Coalition and Senators Cory Bernardi and Pauline Hanson.  The Anti-Encryption Bill, having made is way to the lower house, did.
Shorten’s deputy, Tanya Plibersek, was keen to lay the ground for Thursday’s capitulation to the government earlier in the week.  A range of “protections” had been inserted into the legislation at the behest of the Labor Party. (Such brimming pride!)  The Attorney-General Christian Porter was praised – unbelievably – for having accepted their sagacious suggestions.  The point was elementary: Labor, not wanting to be seen as weak on law enforcement, had to be seen as accommodating.
Porter found himself crowing. “This ensures that our national security and law enforcement agencies have the modern tools they need, the appropriate authority and oversight, to access the encrypted conversations of those who seek to do us harm.”
International authorities versed in the area are looking at the Australian example with jaw dropping concern.  EU officials will find the measure repugnant on various levels, given the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws in place.  Australian technology companies are set to be designated appropriate pariahs, as are other technology companies willing to conduct transactions in Australia.  All consumers are being treated as potential criminals, an attitude that does not sit well with entities attempting to make a buck or two.
Swift On Security, an often canonical source on cyber security matters, is baffled. “Over in Australia they’re shooting themselves in the face with a shockingly technical nonsensical encryption backdoor law.”  Not only does the law fail to serve any useful protections; it “poison-pills their entire domestic tech industry, breaks imports.”
Li’s point, again something which the Australian government insists upon, was that the Chinese law did not constitute a “backdoor” through encryption protections.  Every state official merely wanted to get those “bad people” while sparing the “good”.  The Tor Project is far more enlightening: “There are no safe backdoors.”  An open declaration on the abolition of privacy in Australia has been made; a wonderfully noxious Christmas present for the Australian electorate.

Still no justice as phase one of Grenfell Tower fire inquiry closes

Paul Bond

Almost 18 months after the Grenfell Tower fire of June 14, 2017, which resulted in the deaths of 72 people, the warnings of the Socialist Equality Party and the Grenfell Fire Forum that the official inquiry would be a whitewash have been confirmed.
Phase one of the inquiry, taking witness and expert testimony regarding the night of the fire, will complete within days, more than a year after its first hearing in September 2017. It has been a harrowing experience for those who gave evidence and anyone following proceedings—except for the guilty who should have been forced to hear this testimony before a judge and jury.
Since the fire, there have been 13 convictions for fraudulent appropriation of funds, with an additional six people arrested and charged on suspicion of a public order offence in relation to a vile video in which an effigy of the Tower was set alight on Bonfire Night. In relation to the fire itself, however, not a single person has been charged or even arrested.
In July, it was reported that the police had interviewed under caution a grand total of three people. This is despite the fact everyone knows that the fire was accelerated by the flammable cladding on the building, commissioned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) to cut costs. The resulting rapid spread of the fire meant that standard firefighting operational procedures for tower blocks, including the “stay put” policy advising residents to remain in their apartments, were fatally undermined.
It has subsequently emerged that the safety certificates issued for the building were factually incorrect. Evidence continues to mount of corporate criminality and culpability, with accusations that insulation manufacturer Celotex “knowingly misled buyers” about the safety certification of its products.
Robert Black, head of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO)—that managed Grenfell on behalf of RBKC—sent a memo to his colleagues at 6 a.m. on June 14, 2017, as the Tower was still burning, saying, “We need to pull some of this together pretty fast in terms of health and safety compliance. We need all the information about the refurbishment as this will be a primary focus.”
The Conservative government promised after the fire that it would do whatever was necessary to make the UK’s tower blocks safe. Last month, it finally announced regulations banning the use of combustible materials on new buildings over 18 metres high and powers for local authorities to remove aluminium composite (ACM) cladding from private high-rise buildings, the cost to be reclaimed ultimately from building owners. However, this regulation does not cover existing buildings or new hotels and hostels meaning that the fixtures, fittings, sealants and glues used on Grenfell Tower can continue to be used.
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) has made recommendations on sprinklers, alarms and escape routes for all residential high-rise buildings that have also not yet been considered. This follows considerable evidence to the inquiry pointing to major health and safety shortcomings of the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, which contributed enormously to the disaster.
No funds have been made available to councils to install sprinkler systems, and many councils have not been provided with funding to remove and replace highly flammable cladding from tower blocks. Instead, the government is calling on councils already facing devastating budget cuts to spend millions on remedial works to private buildings. It has promised to meet the costs if private developers will not, but no funding has been allocated and there are no timeframes in place. No penalties have been introduced to ensure the action is taken seriously.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has committed to financial support for councils acting against private owners to remove ACM cladding. But freeholders look likely to challenge legally new costs for removing cladding because the previous building guidance was unclear.
The majority of councils across London and in urbanised areas nationally are Labour Party-run, and evidence of Labour’s complicity in implementing unsafe building regulations and use of dangerous materials continues to emerge. Labour-run Salford City Council in the north of England oversees the highest concentration of towers covered with ACM cladding (29) in the country.
In June, the government announced a joint expert inspection team to assist councils because of the slow progress of repairs of towers in the private sector. This week, Housing Secretary James Brokenshire admitted that taskforce has not started work yet and will not begin until next year. Of 183 private high-rise blocks found to have unsafe cladding, only five have so far been repaired. There are still no clear plans for 50 buildings considered unsafe. All 27 hotel towers with ACM cladding remain untouched.
This has all taken place as the “full, independent public inquiry” promised by Prime Minister Theresa May, that “needs to produce an interim report by the end of this summer [2017] at the latest,” has been in session.
The inquiry was never intended to bring the guilty to justice. It is a fraud because it was convened, and is being overseen and directed, by the very capitalist state apparatus and its political representatives that are responsible for turning Grenfell Tower into a death trap. The inquiry was called under the 2005 Inquiries Act, which stipulates, “An inquiry panel is not to rule on, and has no power to determine, any person’s civil or criminal liability.”
Its chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, stated that it would be “limited to the cause, how it spread, and preventing a future blaze”—providing “a small measure of solace.” He recommended excluding issues of a “social, economic and political nature” and May was only too happy to accept. Phony “consultation” meetings were held in advance to legitimise the inquiry. Asked about prosecuting the guilty, Moore-Bick said “An inquiry is designed to find out what happened. I have no power to do anything in relation to criminal responsibility.”
There was initially huge scepticism among the families of victims, survivors and local residents about the inquiry. The efforts of the trade unions and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn were directed towards legitimising May’s cover-up. Corbyn backed May’s initial proposal, but when popular hostility made this problematic he wrote to her suggesting a two-stage inquiry—the first along Moore-Bick’s lines, the second to cover national issues. The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) also overcame its stated concerns about not discussing broader political issues so it could “participate as fully as possible.” When the inquiry began, the unions and Labour argued for full support, claiming that such appeals to the capitalist state were the way to achieve justice.
Moore-Bick then rejected submissions to appoint a local resident as assessor to the inquiry on the grounds that it would undermine his impartiality! In contrast, KPMG, one of the world’s biggest business restructuring and advisory firms, was forced to step down a month into the inquiry from its role as the inquiry’s project management adviser. KPMG had previously acted as auditor to three of the bodies under investigation, RBKC, Rydon, the main contractor on the refurbishment of the Tower in 2015/2016, and Celotex.
The SEP described the Grenfell Tower fire as an act of “social murder.” We repeat our insistence that those guilty of social murder at Grenfell Tower must be arrested and charged. Those instrumental in the decision to add the cladding to Grenfell must also be arrested and charged. We demand:
• Justice for Grenfell means no cover-up and no inquiry whitewash!
• Arrest the political and corporate criminals responsible!
• Stop the scapegoating of firefighters!
• Quality public housing is a social right!
• For an emergency multibillion-pound programme of public works to build schools, hospitals, public housing and all the infrastructure required in the 21st century!